[Ed Note: Good news! Not long after this item was originally published, the issue was finally attended to and corrected by both Comcast and Symantec! See the bottom of this article for details on what happened! Thank you for making noise!]

The BRAD BLOG has learned that cable company and Internet service provider, Comcast Corporation has been automatically deleting email sent to Comcast customers with the text "www.afterdowningstreet.org" in the body of the email.

AfterDowningStreet.org ("ADS") is the citizen's coalition advocacy group organized to raise awareness of the leaked British memos and minutes referred to as the "Downing Street Documents". Those documents, first reported by Michael Smith of the Sunday Times suggest that the Bush Administration had determined to topple Saddam Hussein by military means and planned to "fix" the facts and intelligence around the policy" at least eight months prior to receiving authorization of the U.S. Congress to wage war in Iraq. At the same time, George W. Bush and administration officials were routinely telling both Congress and the American people that no tactical decisions had yet been made regarding regime change in Iraq.

The discovery that email was being secretly filtered was made after an investigation conducted by ADS co-founder, David Swanson who reported that many coalition members did not seem to be receiving email alerts and others messages being sent by the group.

"Over the past week we have been having problems reaching our members," Swanson said. "Yesterday we had a conference call scheduled that we'd announced by email and two thirds of the people didn't even know about it."

Eventually Swanson was able to determine that it was only those members of the group who receive email via the cable monolith's Comcast.net domain who were not receiving such notices.

According to a study released in January of this year by TNS Telecoms, Comcast Corporation is the nation's largest single provider of both Cable/Satellite and Internet related services in the country.

The BRAD BLOG has been able to independently confirm that email sent to two different Comcast customers with the text "www.afterdowningstreet.org" in the body of the mail, is not currently reaching those customers as expected. Though messages with only "afterdowningstreet.org" are, in fact, able to get through to those same customers without a problem.

In a statement released by People-Link.org, the Internet host for the AfterDowningStreet.org domain, the directors of the "progressive" firm charge that the filtering is politically motivated and both they and Swanson have requested people contact Comcast to complain. (Contact information at the bottom of this article.)...

The BRAD BLOG has learned that Congressmen John Conyers (D-MI) and Barney Frank (D-MA) have inquired with officials at the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service this afternoon into whether impeachment proceedings would be appropriate for Senior White House Officials.

The release of a letter by the two congressmen was accompanied by a press release from the office of the ranking minority House Judiciary Committee member, John Conyers. In the letter, the two seek clarification from "a neutral authority" of whether the U.S. Constitution's Article II, regarding impeachment of a sitting President and Vice-President and "all civil officers", would apply to Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove who is currently embroiled in the on-going criminal investigation into who leaked classified information concerning the outting of covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution speaks to impeachment, but is not completely clear about which "civil officers" would fall under its jurisdiction.

Art II, Sec. 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"

The letter from Frank and Conyers attempts to seek clarification of the term "civil officers of the United States" and whether the clause would be applicable to Rove as a "high-ranking official in the White House and Executive Branch," according to their news release.

Here is the letter sent today, followed by the Press Release issued by both Conyers and Frank.

We write to request your opinion as to whether or not very high- ranking members of the President's staff are subject to the Congressional impeachment process. The Constitution in its discussion of impeachment does not spell out with any specificity which federal officials are impeachable. We believe that the rationale for impeachment clearly applies to high-ranking officials who wield presidential authority in many cases with even more impact than some cabinet officers. And we do not see any Constitutional language that would exclude such officials from the impeachment process. But because this appears to be a question of first impression, and because of the grave importance of this matter, we write to ask your opinion as to whether or not it is Constitutionally permissible to initiate impeachment proceedings against the President's Deputy Chief of Staff, or other similarly highly placed officials.

Rep. Barney Frank
Rep. John Conyers

The following news release from Conyres and Frank was released at the same time as the above letter to officials at the Library of Congress.

Congress of the United States
Washington, DC

For Immediate Release

Friday, July 15, 2005

REPS. CONYERS AND FRANK ASK WHETHER SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS CAN BE IMPEACHED BY THE HOUSE

Letter to Library of Congress seeks clarification of who in the government can be impeached by Congress

Washington, DC-House Judiciary Committee Ranking Democrat John Conyers (D-MI) and House Financial Services Ranking Democratic Member Barney Frank (D-MA) today asked the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress whether it is Constitutionally permissible to begin impeachment proceedings against high-ranking federal officials. This would include members of the President's staff such as White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove.

"We write to request your opinion as to whether high-ranking members of the President's staff are subject to the Congressional impeachment process. The Constitution in its discussion of impeachment does not spell out with any specificity which federal officials are impeachable. We believe that the rationale for impeachment clearly applies to high-ranking officials who wield presidential authority in many cases with even more impact than some cabinet officers," Frank and Conyers write in their letter.

"We share the grave concern felt by many Americans about the revelation that the President's Deputy Chief of Staff and Chief Political Advisor, Karl Rove, improperly identified a CIA undercover operative to journalists as part of a campaign to discredit her husband, who is a critic of some aspects of administration policy," said Mr. Frank.

Mr. Conyers continued: "Mr. Rove continues to occupy this high position, which means that he continues to have access to the full range of the most secret information available to the federal government, with apparently no compunctions about misusing that information for political purposes. We believe that the impeachment power of Congress is in fact intended to cover precisely this sort of situation - that is, a high-ranking official who has not only abused his power, but appears ready to continue such abuse in the future, and subject to no apparent effective check within the executive branch itself."

Historically, impeachments have been launched against presidents and other officials who have been confirmed by the Senate. However, Conyers and Frank noted the language of the constitution--Art. II, Sec. 4: The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors-does not explicitly impost such a requirement. The question Frank and Conyers are asking is what constitutes "civil officers" and does it include high-ranking officials in the White House and Executive Branch.

Given the importance of this issue, the grave abuse of power and unethical manner in which Mr. Rove has been engaged, impeachment may well be an appropriate response. This issue could be relevant in cases where there may be some uncertainty about the willingness of the Executive Branch, in which the criminal prosecution power lies, fully to use that power against someone so close to the President.

"We have asked a neutral legal authority whose function it is to advise Congress to give us the best judgment of its experts on this question, and we will speak with our colleagues about proceeding accordingly after we have received this advice," concluded Frank.

John Aravosis at AMERICAblog has the skinny based on ABC's report last night of how the inept and irresponsible Bush clan seems to have helped to blow our only mole inside of al-Qaeda. An act, which Aravosis contends, helped lead directly to the London Bombings last week.

No, he's not suggesting that Bush was behind the bombings. Just that his arrogance, and desperate need to do and say anything to retain power in this country prior to the election last year, seems to have helped lose an asset by British law enforcement officials which might have avoided the deaths of 53 Brits and the injuries of hundreds more in those attacks.

Given how many deaths Bush's arrogance has led directly to in Iraq, we suspect England should consider themselves lucky. So far.

Yesterday, Sen. Harry Reid and the Dems attempted to add a fairly reasonable (one would think) amendment to a Homeland Security appropriations bill. David Corn of The Nation commented in a late-night blog article, that the amendment could well have been called "the Karl Rove Memorial Act". Here's what it said:

No federal employee who discloses, or has disclosed, classified information, including the identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, to a person not authorized to receive such information shall be permitted to hold a security clearance for access to such information.

It failed on a 44-53 vote. Not one Republican voted for it. Apparently, the Repubs believe that a government official who leaks classified information --- such as the identity of an undercover intelligence official --- should not be denied access to classified information. Not even during a war. Protecting Karl Rove (and future Karl Roves) trumps national security for these patriots.

This time, it was former CBS anchor cum raving wingnut opportunist Bernie Goldberg who fell dumber than a donut once confronted with an intelligent (non-Hannity-approved) challenge to the hateful premise of his hate-mongering book, "100 Americans Who are Screwing Up America (and Al Franken is #37)".

As you may have guessed by now, 97 of the 100 just happened to be identified with the left. No word from Goldberg on whether outing covert CIA agents or creating endless world wars for trumped up reasons screws up America in any way. We'll just suppose those things are great for America!

On the other hand, apparently Barbra Streisand and Michael Jackson are really a great concern of Goldberg's, and apparently America's.

As usual, Stewart --- who simply "gets it" --- cut straight to the heart of the matter after giving Goldberg ample time to make his completely hollow, morally bankrupt, intellectually dishonest, ethically challenged and apparently unsupported case...

JON STEWART: I guess my point is that there is a larger issue of --- most everybody in your book is powerless, and I think there is a much larger issue of people in power creating problems --- not Barbra Streisand, on her blog.

[then after the break, Goldberg got two segments to make his case]

STEWART: I guess my point is that so much focus is on culture and so little is on government and the real seats of power...

BERNARD GOLDBERG: And you don't think culture is an important force out there?

STEWART: Not nearly as much as government. I think that yes, "Friends" was a powerful program for many years --- but my guess is, what's going on in the Pentagon is slightly...But in Washington they actually do have power --- I think in washington, transparency is the real issue, and I wish more smart guys like you spent more time --- not worrying about Barbra Streisand --- but worrying about, you know, Richard Perle, Karl Rove, or whoever the Democrats would have had in that position in the Clinton years.

If only Stewart would spend less time telling the truth and more time lying this country into wars, he might just be eligible for the Medal of Freedom.

As all of the scandals in the House of Bush begin to slowly merge together, AfterDowningStreet.org has an update on events scheduled around the country on July 23rd, the third anniversary of the original "Downing Street Memo" (the minutes of a meeting in the UK describing their foreign ministers meetings with the Bush Administration's plans to topple Saddam through military means eight months prior to asking Congress for authorization, and revealing that they had planned to "fix the intelligence and the facts around the policy").

(As a side note, our interview on last weekend's BRAD SHOW with Times of London's Michael Smith, the journalist who broke the original story and is continuing to break still more if it, is now available for listening online in the BRAD SHOW Archives. Scroll to the 7/9/05 show, HOUR 1.)

Meanwhile, back at Disinfo Central...If you missed the Rush Limbaugh show this morning, you missed quite the lolapalooza. He's become positively unglued vis a vis the Plame/Rove affair. And it was a hoot!

The "theory" that Rush has been pummelling his Ditto Heads with all day: Joe Wilson has been a part of a double super secret background conspiracy with the DNC since day one, well before he was sent by the CIA to Niger.

Yes, that's right. According to Rush, the entire plan to send George W. Bush's own father's Man in Iraq --- a decades-long expert in African and Middle-Eastern affairs to Niger --- was all just a ploy by Democrats "to undermine the War in Iraq and the Bush Presidency," as Rush repeatedly described it.

We suppose then, that Bush 41's letter sent to Wilson saying that he concurred with much of the article that Wilson wrote prior to the war in the San Jose Mercury News was also part of that conspiracy.

Why is Dubya's own father trying to destroy Dubya's own "Presidency", dammit?!

Rush's final words at the end of the show (referring to the Press Conference scheduled by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) to happen shortly): "Chuck Shumer is Joe Wilson's 'handler' in this agency plot to bring down the President."

Good lord, these Right Wing Tin-Foil Hat wearers never fail to entertain.

Po' po' Rush he was even having trouble getting anything but callers who were supportive of Wilson today! Rush is in as much trouble today as his White House counterpart Scottie McClellan has been in all week in the WH press room.

We're also honored that Rush was unglued enough to refer to The BRAD BLOG as a "left wing blog" at the top of the show when he said that "Wilson was even speaking to left wing bloggers last night."

He didn't mention us by name though. Geez, we always give him full credit for everything he says. Oh, well.

Anyway...As reported here yesterday, Wilson appeared this morning on the TODAY Show. The video from his appearance is available at Crooks and Liars.

White House Spokesboy slash liar, Scottie McClellan, the man with the worst portfolio since Terik Aziz was forced to defend Saddam Hussein in public, continued in his third day of his very good Ron Zeigler impression. (Though, in truth, we noticed the similarities long before the rest of the Leftie Pundits seem to have. And huge kudos to John Amato at C&L for getting up the video from a 1973 CBS report with an earily similar ring to it!) He "continued to stonewall on questions surrounding Karl Rove and the Plame case", as Editor & Publisher described it.

Here are a few of the most surprising exchanges. The likes of which led Jon Stewart on The Daily Tuesday to suggest that someone must have "secretly replaced the White House Press Corp with actual reporters."

Q Scott, you know what, to make a general observation here, in a previous administration, if a press secretary had given the sort of answers you've just given in referring to the fact that everybody who works here enjoys the confidence of the President, Republicans would have hammered them as having a kind of legalistic and sleazy defense. I mean, the reality is that you're parsing words, and you've been doing it for a few days now. So does the President think Karl Rove did something wrong, or doesn't he?
...
McCLELLAN: Again, we've been round and round on this for a couple of days now. I don't have anything to add to what I've said the previous two days.

Q That's a different question, and it's not round and round --

McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier.

Q It has nothing to do with the investigation, Scott, and you know it.
...
McCLELLAN: ... This is all relating to questions about an ongoing investigation, and I've been through this.

Q If I wanted to ask you about an ongoing investigation, I would ask you about the statute, and I'm not doing that.

McCLELLAN: I think we've exhausted discussion on this the last couple of days.

Q You haven't even scratched the surface.

Q It hasn't started.
...
McCLELLAN: Again, this is a creative way to come out to the same kind of questions.

Q You're right, it is, and I want an answer.

Wow. Are we dreaming? Where did those guys come from? And where have they been for the last 4 and a half years???

White House Spokesboy slash liar, Scottie McClellan, the man with the worst portfolio since Terik Aziz was forced to defend Saddam Hussein in public, continued in his third day of his very good Ron Zeigler impression. (Though, in truth, we noticed the similarities long before the rest of the Leftie Pundits seem to have. And huge kudos to John Amato at C&L for getting up the video from a 1973 CBS report with an earily similar ring to it!) He "continued to stonewall on questions surrounding Karl Rove and the Plame case", as Editor & Publisher described it.

Here are a few of the most surprising exchanges. The likes of which led Jon Stewart on The Daily Tuesday to suggest that someone must have "secretly replaced the White House Press Corp with actual reporters."

Q Scott, you know what, to make a general observation here, in a previous administration, if a press secretary had given the sort of answers you've just given in referring to the fact that everybody who works here enjoys the confidence of the President, Republicans would have hammered them as having a kind of legalistic and sleazy defense. I mean, the reality is that you're parsing words, and you've been doing it for a few days now. So does the President think Karl Rove did something wrong, or doesn't he?
...
McCLELLAN: Again, we've been round and round on this for a couple of days now. I don't have anything to add to what I've said the previous two days.

Q That's a different question, and it's not round and round --

McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier.

Q It has nothing to do with the investigation, Scott, and you know it.
...
McCLELLAN: ... This is all relating to questions about an ongoing investigation, and I've been through this.

Q If I wanted to ask you about an ongoing investigation, I would ask you about the statute, and I'm not doing that.

McCLELLAN: I think we've exhausted discussion on this the last couple of days.

Q You haven't even scratched the surface.

Q It hasn't started.
...
McCLELLAN: Again, this is a creative way to come out to the same kind of questions.

Q You're right, it is, and I want an answer.

Wow. Are we dreaming? Where did those guys come from? And where have they been for the last 4 and a half years???

White House Spokesboy slash liar, Scottie McClellan, the man with the worst portfolio since Terik Aziz was forced to defend Saddam Hussein in public, continued in his third day of his very good Ron Zeigler impression. (Though, in truth, we noticed the similarities long before the rest of the Leftie Pundits seem to have. And huge kudos to John Amato at C&L for getting up the video from a 1973 CBS report with an earily similar ring to it!) He "continued to stonewall on questions surrounding Karl Rove and the Plame case", as Editor & Publisher described it.

Here are a few of the most surprising exchanges. The likes of which led Jon Stewart on The Daily Tuesday to suggest that someone must have "secretly replaced the White House Press Corp with actual reporters."

Q Scott, you know what, to make a general observation here, in a previous administration, if a press secretary had given the sort of answers you've just given in referring to the fact that everybody who works here enjoys the confidence of the President, Republicans would have hammered them as having a kind of legalistic and sleazy defense. I mean, the reality is that you're parsing words, and you've been doing it for a few days now. So does the President think Karl Rove did something wrong, or doesn't he?
...
McCLELLAN: Again, we've been round and round on this for a couple of days now. I don't have anything to add to what I've said the previous two days.

Q That's a different question, and it's not round and round --

McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier.

Q It has nothing to do with the investigation, Scott, and you know it.
...
McCLELLAN: ... This is all relating to questions about an ongoing investigation, and I've been through this.

Q If I wanted to ask you about an ongoing investigation, I would ask you about the statute, and I'm not doing that.

McCLELLAN: I think we've exhausted discussion on this the last couple of days.

Q You haven't even scratched the surface.

Q It hasn't started.
...
McCLELLAN: Again, this is a creative way to come out to the same kind of questions.

Q You're right, it is, and I want an answer.

Wow. Are we dreaming? Where did those guys come from? And where have they been for the last 4 and a half years???

White House Spokesboy slash liar, Scottie McClellan, the man with the worst portfolio since Terik Aziz was forced to defend Saddam Hussein in public, continued in his third day of his very good Ron Zeigler impression. (Though, in truth, we noticed the similarities long before the rest of the Leftie Pundits seem to have. And huge kudos to John Amato at C&L for getting up the video from a 1973 CBS report with an earily similar ring to it!) He "continued to stonewall on questions surrounding Karl Rove and the Plame case", as Editor & Publisher described it.

Here are a few of the most surprising exchanges. The likes of which led Jon Stewart on The Daily Tuesday to suggest that someone must have "secretly replaced the White House Press Corp with actual reporters."

Q Scott, you know what, to make a general observation here, in a previous administration, if a press secretary had given the sort of answers you've just given in referring to the fact that everybody who works here enjoys the confidence of the President, Republicans would have hammered them as having a kind of legalistic and sleazy defense. I mean, the reality is that you're parsing words, and you've been doing it for a few days now. So does the President think Karl Rove did something wrong, or doesn't he?
...
McCLELLAN: Again, we've been round and round on this for a couple of days now. I don't have anything to add to what I've said the previous two days.

Q That's a different question, and it's not round and round --

McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier.

Q It has nothing to do with the investigation, Scott, and you know it.
...
McCLELLAN: ... This is all relating to questions about an ongoing investigation, and I've been through this.

Q If I wanted to ask you about an ongoing investigation, I would ask you about the statute, and I'm not doing that.

McCLELLAN: I think we've exhausted discussion on this the last couple of days.

Q You haven't even scratched the surface.

Q It hasn't started.
...
McCLELLAN: Again, this is a creative way to come out to the same kind of questions.

Q You're right, it is, and I want an answer.

Wow. Are we dreaming? Where did those guys come from? And where have they been for the last 4 and a half years???

Ambassador Joseph Wilson fired back today at the Rightwing Spin Machine, which, having been issued marching orders late yesterday in a set of talking points from the RNC, is once again hoping to distract from the potentially treasonous crimes that George W. Bush's top political operative and Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, is alleged to have committed.

In a phone discussion early this afternoon, Wilson told The BRAD BLOG in no uncertain terms that "the President should fire Rove."

He told us that he'd be appearing on NBC's Today Show tomorrow morning and would be repeating that call.

As well, he told The BRAD BLOG that he planned to read a letter on air which he received from Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush shortly after an article of his was printed in the San Jose Mercury News, on October 13, 2002, in which Wilson related his concerns about the pitfalls of the approach to Iraq being taken at the time by both the U.N. and the U.S.

In reply to that article, Wilson said that the former President wrote that he had "read your article and I agree with a lot of it."

Additionally, Wilson explained, Bush 41's own National Security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft, had contacted him to ask whether he "could walk on over to the White House with the letter" at the time. Which apparently he did.

Wilson also had sent the article to Bush 41's Secretary of State, James Baker.

"None of them responded saying you're a Democratic partisan hack and your views suck," said Wilson.

The above points are notable, because armed with those RNC talking points, Rush Limbaugh, Fox "News" and Friends have today kicked into overdrive smearing and lying about Wilson, claiming that he was against the Iraq War from the get-go.

If fact, Wilson, who was in charge of the Embassy in Iraq during the first Gulf War under Bush 41 (he was the last American to speak personally with Saddam Hussein before the war begain, and was responsible for taking care of some 125 Americans who had sought refuge in the American Embassy there when they were not allowed by Saddam to leave the country just prior to the war), says that it was "a full eight months" after he was sent by the CIA to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium there, "before I had said anything publicly about what America should consider in regard to a war with Iraq."

"My real concern was always WMD," he told us, "not Regime Change."

That concern was expressed in the October 2002, San Jose Mercury News editorial which apparently George W. Bush's own father and National Security Advisor tended to agree with. Wilson's trip to Niger occurred a full eight months earlier, in February of that same year.

We asked him if he had heard Fox "News'" John Gibson make his deplorable and irresponsible statement yesterday which said that "Karl Rove should receive a medal," because Wilson's wife, covert CIA asset Valerie Plame, "should have been outed."

"Where I come from," slurred Gibson, "we do not want secret spy masters pulling the puppet strings in the background.

Gibson's "logic", such that he has any, seems to be based on the unsupported claims that Plame --- or Wilson's "little wifey" as Gibson condescendingly referred to her --- was "pulling the puppet strings" of national policy from her covert position in the CIA, by sending Wilson to Niger. That was, in Gibson's false claim, because Wilson, "was opposed to the War in Iraq, opposed to Bush policy, and pointedly and loudly said so."

No, he didn't, Mr. Gibson. Never mind those pesky facts. It's only Fox "News" you work for, so we realize such facts are hardly relevant to you receiving your paycheck there.

"That is something that should be out in the open," blathered Gibson, "And the person doing it should be identified and should own up to it. So Rove should get a medal, if he did do what he says he didn't do."

In response, Wilson simply said, "Well, that's a lie. But no surprise there."

In the meantime, despite such pesky facts, the wingnuts also continue to claim that Plame was, in fact, not even a covert asset at the time of her outing.

In regard to whether she was covert or not at the time of her outing by Rove, Bob Novak or whoever his "two senior administration sources" were, Wilson said, "What I can say is, that the CIA looked at the evidence of what had happened and referred the case to the Justice Department. That means that the CIA may think that a crime has been committed."

On Rightwing Hackery hoping to cynically deflect from the seriousness of the potentially treasonous crime committed by claiming that "Wilson lied" about his wife's involvement in sending him to Niger, Wilson says, "In actual fact, all I've done is repeat what the CIA itself has said since July 22nd, 2003 as reported initially in Newsday by Knut Royce and Tim Phelps."

A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked "alongside" the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger.

But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. "They [the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story] were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising," he said. "There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason," he said. "I can't figure out what it could be."

"The CIA said [my wife] was not the person to have authorized my trip. They've repeated that time and time again."

And the Bush Apologists, who suddenly don't seem to care all that much about National Security after all, keep repeating the opposite. Time and time again.

Perhaps he's desperate to be as popularly hated as his colleague Bill O'Reilly. Who knows for sure? But Fox "News'" John Gibson has been desperately and shamefully attempting to grab headlines lately. At any and all costs.

Last Thursday after the bombings in London, Gibson appallingly said, "This is why I thought the Brits should let the French have the Olympics --- let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while."

That, the day after he'd said about the choice to hold the Olympics in London in 2012: "If they had picked France instead of London to hold the Olympics, it would have been the one time we could look forward to where we didn't worry about terrorism. They'd blow up Paris, and who cares?"

Gibson, irony-of-ironies, wrote a book recently attempting to answer the question of why the world hates America. As far as we know, however, he didn't include a chapter simply entitled "Me". But he should have.

(The rest of Gibson's America Hating Fox compatriots were equally despicable vis a vis the London Bombings last week. In case you missed any of it, MediaMatters has compiled a round-up of all the good hating from Fox.)

But Gibson outdid even himself in the way of slimy smears on behalf of his paymasters at the Republican Party and the Fox Republican "News" Channel by leading the way yesterday with what is quickly becoming the desperate Spin du Jour in the PlameGate/Karl Rove matter. Oliver Willis was there...

Fox News: Anti National Security

FOX News anchor John Gibson just said onair that he thought Karl Rove deserves a medal if he outed Valerie Plame. Let me repeat: John Gibson, anchor at the FOX News Channel, says he believes that we ought to expose our covert government agents and harm national security as long as it benefits Republicans.

His death came on the day prior to the BRAD BLOGATHON (wherein the readers took the joint over, so we could not post here at all!) and therefore I was unable to follow up with a few items of note. I shall do so now.

Those who knew of Andy's illness, may also have known about the disgraceful ghouls at FreeRepublic and elsewhere who had made a quick industry out of challenging Andy's illness after the Internet community came together to quickly raise $50,000 for Andy's surgery at Johns Hopkins (he had no health insurance after being unemployed in the wake of leaving Black Box Voting where Bev Harris and he parted on very less than good terms).

The loathesome Freepers charged that the fundraising effort was fraud, and succeeded in having his PayPal account frozen until an investigation proved that his needs were legit. That little act of thoughtfulness on the part of the repugnant folks who would unrepentingly do such a thing, helped to delay Andy's surgery for three weeks and added an unconscionable additional burden to his final weeks of life and death struggle.

There is some discussion on that, some words of tribute, and information on a memorial service to be held for Andy at Town Hall in Seattle at 1119 Eighth Ave., on Saturday, July 16, at 2 p.m. in the following items on his passing from over the last few days...